Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 86863	2008-01-30 21:20:00	The next Windows - what I really want	Biggles (121)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
635678	2008-01-30 21:20:00	Like many, I've failed to get bitten by Vista, despite looking at it in beta form etc and having a copy sitting on my shelf. My reasons are the same as most people - there just isn't enough in there to make up or the inconvenience of updating software, taking a performance hit etc etc. But there remain things about XP that drive me nuts. Specifically, the way an install will over time become trashed, forcing you into a re-install or endless purges of the messy footprints of rogue apps. I don't want Linux. I'm lazy. Really lazy. I want to go with the crowd. I want a mainstream OS so I have the most choice of stuff. I don't want to go Mac either. I think they are good. Love the OS. Great hardware but I want choice when buying. I want to build my own PC. So yes, what I want is a better Windows. A much better one. And Vista isn't it. If MS was going to break backwards compatibility, which they have done, they should have really busted it and started over with a new model of OS. What I wish they had done is this: 1] Created an OS where the core operating system is isolated from any application. For real this time. No software vendor (including MS) should be able to load parts of their applications in systray or preload bits into memory without the user's approval. The default behaviour for an application should be that once installed it is totally dormant unless you choose to let it have automatic access to systray or memory in some form. I want to run an app when I want to run it, NOT when the software vendor THINKS I might. And when I do run it, I don't want it interfering with anything else. Now this might in some cases degrade the user experience. It might make users go through a few more steps. But who gives a rat's arse if you have control over your OS again? 2] Alternatively (or actually in addition to) the above I want the OS to provide simple, clear tools that let you control the custom boot configurations. So you can call up a tool which displays everything that loads at boot along with plain English descriptions of what each element is (which vendors should be forced to provide to have their apps be Windows certified) and more importantly what it does. There should be a flag for vital system components you cannot disable, a flag for optional system components you can disable, and a flag for all the other third party stuff (again with text describing the effect of disabling it). You then can click away turning stuff off and on, save that new config under a name and when you reboot, all these custom configs are listed. Or even better you shouldn't need to reboot merely choose a different config and have the OS reconfgure itself without a restart. Yes, MSConfig provides a lot of this, but it isn't designed for Joe Sixpack. And Vista's annoying UAC is merely a "it's-not-my-fault" band aid to make sure that when you do have an app mess stuff up, you know its your fault for letting it happen, rather than MS's for making an OS where it could. This functionality needs to be a core feature, not a tweak you can play with. It needs to be there right up front so that if your 15-year old kid wants to configure the OS his way to make it run games at their best he can do so without going in and messing with your PC in a way that's going to make you crazy. And you just click on your config to restore you r PC to exactly how you want it. And the OS also needs to give you, the administrator, the power to stop that 15-year old from disabling certain things, so that from the Boot Config, he cannot turn off anti-virus and firewalls. MS needs to provide, after all this time, an OS that never, ever requires re-installation. An OS that can be repaired - totally - without a reinstall. An OS where third party vendors are unable to mess up your vital system files or the crucial system files of other apps. An OS where once running, an app really cannot mess with the another app in memory. An OS where when you un-install and app you can have confidence that it is actually gone. If they did that, it would be on my PC. Of course, if they did that, then they might never need to do another OS. But it is clearly time that MS needs to sit down and consider just what the word "feature" means with regards to an operating system.	Biggles (121)
635679	2008-01-30 22:07:00	I know you don't want it, but... what you describe sounds eerily like what Linux has been capable of for many years.	Erayd (23)
635680	2008-01-30 22:42:00	Ditto Bruce. But it must also be capable of DX10 etc. That counts Linux out.........	pctek (84)
635681	2008-01-30 22:53:00	Great post Bruce. If only...:dogeye:	wratterus (105)
635682	2008-01-30 23:13:00	You want a secure OS, Bruce? Microsoft will tell you that most people can't cope with that . MS have even tried it: they hired an expert from DEC to design the NT OS for them . He made it secure . Of course, it wasn't allowed to stay secure . Passwords? People won't use them . An OS which doesn't change unless it is explicitly told to by a system administrator? People want (or think they want) the OS to change itself automatically . That saves them the trouble of learning how to do that . An OS which is "friendly" will improve itself to the point of needing a clean reinstallation frequently . Entropy increases . I'm not hopeful for the future of Linux .	Graham L (2)
635683	2008-01-30 23:15:00	I know you don't want it, but... what you describe sounds eerily like what Linux has been capable of for many years. Most people are really like me. They are happy with the mainstream OS that everyone else has, for a whole raft of reasons. Linux doesn't appeal for that reason. (plus I'm a game player, another reason a Mac doesn't cut it, although boot camp does make it more practical). MS could, of course build a solid Linux-like base and then include virtualisation on top for backwards compatibility - so that you could run your old XP games, for example. Apple has shown how a bold move like that can pay off. MS's biggest problem is fear.	Biggles (121)
635684	2008-01-30 23:21:00	MS 's biggest problem is fear alright, Fear of the giant biotic warrior created in the image of mythical Super-Hero Metla which is at this very moment sharpening his fists before hunting down every MS employee world wide and beating them into liquid. This will take the form of a side scrolling beat-em up, 80's style. bad dudes vs Super hero double dragon Ninja in the final impact on the streets of rage, Extreme turbo edition.	Metla (12)
635685	2008-01-30 23:26:00	You want a secure OS, Bruce? Microsoft will tell you that most people can't cope with that. MS have even tried it: they hired an expert from DEC to design the NT OS for them. He made it secure. Of course, it wasn't allowed to stay secure. Passwords? People won't use them. An OS which doesn't change unless it is explicitly told to by a system administrator? People want (or think they want) the OS to change itself automatically. That saves them the trouble of learning how to do that. An OS which is "friendly" will improve itself to the point of needing a clean reinstallation frequently. The point is not to stop the OS changing itself, but to stop third party apps changing the OS. How many times have you installed an app, had no opportunity to make config choices during install, and then found you got "helpful" items sitting in memory, or that it's changed a shared DLL that messes up another app? And don't get me started on the registry. Windows is like a small car. It's fine when one guy is driving it and its not overloaded. But after a while it becomes a third world vehicle - carrying a parasitic load of passengers and cargo that slow it down and wear it out. You can kick everybody out and empty it of excess baggage, but the damage has been done. You've got to take it into the shop and replace half the engine before it will run well again. Knowing that it is going to be treated that way, it should be built from the beginning with a sturdier frame and a more robust engine so matter what is thrown at it, it can shake it off and emerge good as new. Instead, what MS does is give it cup holders, a zany paint job and a new stereo and tell you it is now the best little car in the world.	Biggles (121)
635686	2008-01-31 00:06:00	Bruce I reckon you're right on, and anyone who uses their PC for anything more than internet and email would agree. I'm sure people have felt the same for years but MS ignores that. I use Mac as well as XP, and I've use Ubuntu for a while. Basically I want the compatibility and familiarity of Windows - but I want it to be a decent OS instead of the crap we keep getting served. There are much better OS's around, but Windows still seems to think it can balance the fact it's a bad OS with the fact people recognize it - and it's quite easy to learn. The amount of people who bring their PC's in to be fixed which cant without a rebuild is amazing. To repair the OS takes hours and hours. Windows has really pushed PC Techs into a corner - a whinging customer because they have to loose their non backed up data, or a bill for 6 hours work to get the OS stable again...	Enigmur (10547)
635687	2008-01-31 02:38:00	The point is not to stop the OS changing itself, but to stop third party apps changing the OS . How many times have you installed an app, had no opportunity to make config choices during install, and then found you got "helpful" items sitting in memory, or that it's changed a shared DLL that messes up another app? Er . . . hang on . 3rd party apps are great . I don't want to be stuck using MS versions of my favourite apps . Nero vs Windows CD Burning Photoshop vs Paint . HL2 vs Freecell And maybe shared DLLs are one of the problems in the first place . My first O/S didn't share dlls .	pctek (84)
1 2